- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2618 WP No. 106699 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.106699 OF 2023 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KALAMMA BOVI W/O YENKAPPA BOVI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, VARADAPURA, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BELLARY-583212. 2. SMT. HULIYAMMA @ VALLIMA B W/O LATE MALLESHAPPA B AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, VARADAPURA, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BELLARY-583212. 3. SMT. MARAMMA W/O PALANISWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, VARADAPURA, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BELLARY-583212. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND TRIBUNAL, HOSPET, BELLARY-583201. 2. THE TAHSILDAR HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BELLARY-583212. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.14 15:23:27 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2618 WP No. 106699 of 2023 3. C H RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED MAJOR, S/O. SATHYANARAYA, KASABI CAMP, KOLLUR POST, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584136. 4. RBSSN FERROUS INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD., SANKLAPUR BELLARY HUBLI ROAD, KARIGNUR POST HOSAPETE, KARNATAKA-583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M.KHANNUR., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED; SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 19.07.1996 IN CASE NO.BU.SU 109/91-92 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.354/C MEASURING 1 ACRE 4 GUNTAS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs. “1. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 in case No. BU. SU 109/91-92 passed by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-F, in the interest of justice and equity in respect of Sy.No.354/C measuring 1 acre 4 guntas. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2618 WP No. 106699 of 2023 2. Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the order dated 19-07-1996 passed by respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-F under Section 80 and 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act holding that the sale in favour of the vendor of the petitioners was in violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the said vendor not being an agriculturist entitled to purchase the land. The petitioners claim that the petitioners having purchased the land on 05-08-1994, petitioners ought to have been issued a notice before any action was taken since there is a right created in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of the registered sale deed. 3. Having gone through the documents, it is seen that the impugned order of respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner was passed on 19-07-1996. In furtherance of which, MR No.9/96-97 was entered into on 13-09-1996 and the name of the petitioners’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2618 WP No. 106699 of 2023 vendor came to be deleted from the RTC’s replacing it with the name of the Government of Karnataka. The same is also evidenced by the RTC’s, which has been produced by the petitioners themselves at page 50 of the above petition. Thus, the entry in the revenue records having been effected on 13-09-1996, the above petition, which has been filed on 21-09-2023 after the property had been leased to respondent No.4, is hopelessly barred by delay and latches. 4. In that view of the matter, it being clear that the petitioners’ vendor had purchased the property in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the said vendor of the petitioners not having contested the matter before the Assistant Commissioner despite of notice having been issued to him on two earlier occasions by a registered postal acknowledgement due the petitioners cannot have a better title than his vendor. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2618 WP No. 106699 of 2023 5. As such, both on account of delay and latches as also on account of merits, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78